Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TJMSmith: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Undid revision 1007221299 by Bduke (talk); Repair mess 2
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 186: Line 186:
----
----
* Seems like a good candidate, but I’m curious to know the answer to question 6. [[User:Foxnpichu|Foxnpichu]] ([[User talk:Foxnpichu|talk]]) 23:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
* Seems like a good candidate, but I’m curious to know the answer to question 6. [[User:Foxnpichu|Foxnpichu]] ([[User talk:Foxnpichu|talk]]) 23:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
*:Agreed. If {{u|TJMSmith}} does not wish to answer the question, they should indicate accordingly. [[User:Sdrqaz|Sdrqaz]] ([[User talk:Sdrqaz|talk]]) 02:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
*:Agreed. If {{u|TJMSmith}} does not wish to answer the question, they should indicate accordingly. [[User:Sdrqaz|Sdrqaz]] ([[User talk:Sdrqaz|talk]]) 02:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
*::Would most likely support this RFA but I’m just a little worried about how question #6 was snubbed, It was a valid question from a 7 day old editor about welcoming new editors (they themselves being one) and it goes casually unanswered. I don’t think it sends the right message to new editors.'''[[User:Celestina007|Celestina007]]''' ([[User talk:Celestina007|talk]]) 03:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:22, 17 February 2021

TJMSmith

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (85/1/2); Scheduled to end 13:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Nomination

TJMSmith (talk · contribs) – TJMSmith does a bit of everything. He's improved several articles to good article status, put forward a number of Did you know? nominations, and helped out at In The News, where we always seem to need admins. He has an impressive record at rescuing articles threatened with deletion to make notability obvious. Best of all, he is unfailingly civil and polite to anyone and everyone, including cases where people have strongly disagreed with him, and that is a trait I seriously admire in any admin candidate. He has my complete and utter confidence in being an administrator, and I hope you share my view. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination

I’m so pleased to co-nominate TJMSmith, who in addition to being a content creator and generally helpful person has the temperament that IMO is the most crucial aspect of fitness for adminship. One example: their behavior at this AfD for an article they had created. Their !vote was to agree that maybe it just wasn’t enough of a thing yet. Many content creators have had the experience of having an article we worked hard on nominated for deletion. We’ve experienced that frustration, and we’ve seen angry creators behaving badly at AfD. TJMSmith did exactly the opposite. And that’s just one example of the general way they interact with other editors. I think this editor will be the kind of all-around helpful admin who checks their dashboard for backlogs on logging in to see if there’s somewhere they can be helpful today. That’s just the kind of person TJMSmith is. —valereee (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you, Ritchie333 and Valereee. I accept the nomination. I have never edited for pay and this is my only account. My account was renamed from Thsmi002 to TJMSmith at my request. TJMSmith (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: In addition to general maintenance, I see myself assisting in discussions and the posting of items at WP:ITN. Reviewing content at WP:AFC is one of the ways I try to help newer editors. Relatedly, I intended to help with WP:REVDEL of AfC submissions declined as copyright violations. I’ve been a frequent nominator at DYK, and I’d be willing to help there, too, though I think I’ll want to build a few preps to make sure I understand that process first. I will also help with closing AfDs. I am also happy to provide assistance with WP:RFPP and with requested page moves. What I’ve heard from most admins is that they ended up helping out in places they never had particularly planned to help out in, once they had the tools to be helpful there.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I am most proud of my content creation, which primarily consists of editing biographies, but have steadily increased my gnoming activities. Rescuing articles from deletion (WP:HEYMANN) is another way I contribute. When the article, Shelby Starner was nominated for deletion, I improved it to Good Article status. Some Good Articles I started include Constance Kies, Marie Smallface Marule, and Nancy Marcus. More recently, I nominated Joseph Gelders for good article status. I write on a broad range of topics, but much of the content relates to Women in STEM, LGBTQ+ individuals, and Puerto Rico. I also contribute to Commons and Wikidata.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: The only time I felt stressed was when I first started in 2017. I was not aware of WP:N and several of my initial contributions did not meet notability requirements. After becoming acquainted with AfDs, I quickly discovered the many important policies Wikipedia maintains and started learning from experienced editors. I don’t encounter negative exchanges frequently. In terms of more recent conflicts, (probably too strong a word for this situation) I was involved in a discussion on the scope of different WikiProjects (see WT:PUR). I supported a broader scope of WP:POLITICS/US and WP:LATINOS but some WP:Puerto Rico participants wanted a smaller scope to prevent possible confusion/obfuscation relating to its territorial status. An in depth discussion ensued. In situations like this, I will continue to strive to remain level-headed, not take anything personally, and always assume good faith. In my experience, Wikipedia is a unique space where differing viewpoints usually coalesce to produce stronger articles.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Optional question from Willbb234
4. Hello there. Looking at this article you created, Nirali N. Shah, I see you have cited the subjects CV, and some brief mentions on company websites as sources. This is the same case with this article, Dale Baum. Both articles are almost entirely dependent on these arguably unreliable and poor quality sources. I would like to ask you if you understand Wikipedia:Reliable source, as it is one of Wikipedia's most important guidelines?
A: Thanks for the question Willbb234. I agree that WP:RS and WP:BLP are among the most important guidelines. Regrettably, many notable academics are not always covered by secondary sources. WP:ACADEMIC goes into more detail on this. Those two biographies cite noncontroversial information to CVs posted by their employer, the National Cancer Institute and Texas A&M University respectively. When at all possible, I try to cite information to reliable secondary sources and I always exercise caution when using primary sources (WP:BLPPRIMARY). TJMSmith (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Dolotta
5. What area or areas of the English Wikipedia are you the weakest?
A: Thanks Dolotta! I’ve never edited/collaborated to upgrade an article to WP:FA status. It is a future goal of mine. Additionally, some of the more technical aspects (i.e. bots, scripts, gadgets) sometimes confuse me. TJMSmith (talk) 17:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from AlaChuckthebuck
6. What is your position on welcoming new Wikipedians and what do you think the role of an admin is in that regard?
A:
Optional question from Sdrqaz
7. Given your stated desire to work in WP:RfPP, could you go through what your decision-making process would be for when deciding whether to grant semi-protection or pending-changes protection?
A: Thank you for the question. Content and conduct disputes can usually be resolved through other methods of mediation. Where I see cases of repeated and persistent policy violations (especially with BLPs and copyrights), I would judiciously use pending-changes protection (for less frequently edited articles) and semi-protection (more active articles). In both cases, I would refer back to WP:ROUGHSEMI and WP:PCPP to ensure I am following proper policy. I know there are differing opinions on protection. I’ve read over For and Against TFA protection (an old essay) and the ongoing TFA pending-changes protection proposal. The open access and collaborative nature of Wiki is important to me, so I would take care to avoid overstepping and preventing constructive contributions from editors who edit anonymously or with IP addresses. TJMSmith (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Dreamy Jazz
8. You mention that you desire to help by using WP:REVDEL on drafts declined as copyright violations. Could you give me a brief overview of what you would do to determine if revisions contained copyright violations, and then whether revision deletion or an alternative measure was more appropriate. Let me know if you would like clarification. Thanks in advance and good luck with the RfA.
A: Hello. I am newer to this area, so I would proceed with caution and consult with more experienced admins. In my answer above, I was referring to cases of criterion RD1 where some edits to an article (or in this case, an AfC draft) contained a copyvio and is later rewritten. In this instance, the edit history needs to be redacted after the copyvio is removed. This contrasts with G12 speedy deletion when the whole article is a copyvio. I encounter blatant copyvios somewhat frequently. Currently, I use Earwig when reviewing AfC drafts. I will familiarize myself with other WP:CVTOOLS. TJMSmith (talk) 00:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Paradise Chronicle
9. What is your approach towards WP:IAR if approached with a problem the Wikipedia community hasn't been able to formulate a guideline or a policy for?
A: I cannot remember a time I personally referenced IAR although I have seen it mentioned occasionally in AfDs. The Wikipedia community’s guidelines/policies are quite comprehensive. Consensus is vital, so the methods of policy development located at WP:PROPOSAL are essential to formulating new guidelines. Personally, I’ve found project talkpages to be useful forums for discussing questions or seeking advice. Circling back to your question, I think referencing IAR depends on the situation, specific context, and the different variables. Since this is hypothetical, it is hard to answer specifically. I hope you don’t see this as me trying to sidestep the question as that is not my intention! TJMSmith (talk) 02:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Modussiccandi
10. My question is about your statement that you wish to close at AfD should you be made an admin. Your AfD record tells me that you almost never !vote to delete, which is not per se a problem. Since you haven't done any CSD or PROD tagging either, it seems clear that deletion isn't something you're very interested in. Now, there will inevitably be some AfDs that would have to be closed as a rough consensus for deletion. What would you do to ensure your own leanings won't influence your closing at AfD?
A: Thanks for the question. I would not say I am not interested in deletions- I believe deletions are an important necessity for maintaining a useful and reliable Wikipedia. While not the same thing, I routinely reject AfC drafts when they do not meet notability requirements. I see more AfDs than not where I believe deletion is the preferred outcome (i.e. subject does not meet any notability criteria). When closing AfDs, I will review the consensus and assess the weight of the arguments presented. Particular attention will be paid to policy-based arguments. Likewise, with my keep votes, I am careful to base my opinion in policy and to avoid any emotional or personal bias from influencing my decision. If I am at all unsure about closing an AfD and have a view one way or the other on it, I would !vote instead of closing. TJMSmith (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Hog Farm
11. An article is up for AFD, and the arguments for keeping revolve around the subject technically meeting an SNG component such as WP:NBASE #3, while the arguments for deletion are based on a complete failure of WP:GNG. Which argument carries more weight?
A:
Optional question from Wugapodes
12. Given your interest in RFPP, I want to ask a hypothetical question based on a real situation. An editor reports at RFPP that a long-term abuser has been vandalizing the featured article every day for the last 5 days, and the vandlaism always comes soon after the midnight update. This vandalism is a serious violation of our policy on claims about living people and many instances have been revision deleted under criterion 2. Range blocks and edit filters have not been effective at stopping this vandalism, and the TFA has been protected every day because of the disruption. The reporting editor asks that the upcoming TFA be protected for the 24 hours it is on the front page. You are the only admin at RFPP and it's almost midnight: what options do you consider, what actions would you take, and why?
A:

Discussion

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Support
  1. Support as nominator Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Not a jerk, has a clue. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, found precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. support - nothing bad jumps out. Seems like a fantastic editor. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - without reservation. Glad he was willing to step forward. Go Phightins! 14:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support for meeting my mins. Ifnord (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, good night. enjoyer|talk 14:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Good editor, their civility is especially welcome as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support inclusionist but a good one - 90% of the AfDs they participated in went the way of their !vote. SK2242 (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support, per nom. Beccaynr (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support per nom also. Rcsprinter123 (interview) 15:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support good noms and spot check of contributions reveals nothing but positive contributions. Should do fine. Regards SoWhy 15:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Exemplary colleague. Thank you for all your contributions. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support as nom. —valereee (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Yes and yes. Does good work improving our articles, esp. the ones which need it most. Very civil interaction with other editors. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support -Shakil Hosen Talk 16:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support it's no big deal, remember? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Seems a reasonably decent candidate. Only 573 Afd', but no csd farming. Certainly, a decent number to be going on with but I see no reason why the editor won't make an excellent admin. scope_creepTalk 16:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  20. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Seems adequate. SenatorLEVI 16:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - Skingo12 (talk) 17:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. What everyone else said. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Gamaliel (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Based on my opinion of the nominators' opinions. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Thanks for volunteering! Levivich harass/hound 17:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  27. A candidate with the right skills to do the work they describe and who will benefit our project with their use of the toolset. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support I admire his work and civility! GrammarDamner how are things? 17:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support: good temperament, need for the tools and high-quality work. — Bilorv (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - Will be a net positive.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support, this seems fine. BD2412 T 18:11, 15
  32. Support, Seems to do some great work on a decently sized spectrum of topics which is always nice to see at RFA. AlaChuckthebuck (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. Looking forward to TJMSmith's continued contributions at WP:ITNRD. Thanks for the nomination. Ktin (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. Even temperament + Solid judgment + Technical skill = admin. Britishfinance (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Surprised I've not run into this candidate before, given some overlapping areas, but they seem a fine positive. Indeed, my only negative, is that they make me feel self-conscious about my weak "moderate inclusionist" status! ;) Nosebagbear (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support: This candidate and I edit in heavily overlapping areas (like WiR biographies of academics), and though we haven't interacted a lot, I have come across plenty of pages that they've written. Their content creation is excellent and they're certainly one of the very biggest contributors in that area on Wikipedia. I am very glad to see them at RfA and happy to strongly support. - Astrophobe (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support - I did not recognize the name at first, which is probably a good thing. It means they pretty much stay out of trouble! But after looking at their contributions and history I don't see any big red flags. PackMecEng (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support daylon124 (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support no issues. Possibly (talk) 20:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support: user can be trusted with the admin tools. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 20:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support per Ritchie333 TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support after reviewing this user's contributions, I've found nothing to give me concerns about their behavior. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 21:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Can they be trusted with the tools? I think so. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support User contributions demonstrate strong knowledge of policies and appropriate judgement where applicable. Babegriev (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Qualified candidate. Thank you for offering to serve! DanCherek (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support per nom - I see no red flags or issues here, –Davey2010Talk 21:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. Has the ideal temperament for an admin. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 22:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support - Thought they already were an admin - I guess because of their level-headed temperment, AfD participation, and as an overall +net contributor. They will make a trustworthy administrator. Netherzone (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Same here. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. Excellent content contributions. — Newslinger talk 00:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. Good all round. - Chandan Guha (talk) 01:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support - satisfactory answers. Looks fine to me - Alison ❤ 01:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Although I haven't run into the candidate yet, no concerns here. Seems to have plenty of clue, and temperament is a definite plus. Miniapolis 01:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. Best of luck. Pamzeis (talk) 02:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support They seem to have a good attitude towards others and are knowledgeable about content creation and policies. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support TJMSmith has become a familiar name around post-1932 American politics. I have no doubt that they are highly competent and will make a successful and productive administrator. KidAd talk 04:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support - see no reason not to. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 09:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. Long-term editor with strong content contributions and no red flags that I can see. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support go for it!Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support long and valued history of edits. Hughesdarren (talk) 10:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support likely net positive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Reasonable and well argued points made by Willbb234 who opposes but not quite enough to swing my opinion on an overall solid candidate. I think they will be a net positive. wikitigresito (talk) 11:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support my question was answered well, so although I have not seen them around much, they understand the use of revdel / when it might be not the best measure. Barring anything major being raised, I am happy to support. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 13:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support - We need more admins, not less.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support Not entirely convinced that the need for the tools has been justified, but the candidate clearly has the competence and temperament required and will no doubt be a useful administrator. Poltair (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support per nom. Great candidate. ☎️ Churot DancePop 15:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support, I believe. Seems clue-y, not jerk-y. Vaguely familiar with the name; mildly concerned by the fact I don't have any associations with it despite moving in many of the same places, but not worried about anything I've seen here so far. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support - no concerns, net positive. GiantSnowman 17:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support at first I had concerns with the user's BLP edits and the lack of participation in AfD. However, I think the amount of articles that he has created and the amount of AfD frequenter supporters above makes him a good candidate. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 17:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support as a likely net positive. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support net positive, easy to collaborate with, bottom line, I trust them based on our interactions. SusunW (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support per nom. — Amkgp 💬 18:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support He's been very helpful and good to work with! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support I'm not troubled by the BLP issues: they are a routine problem when dealing with academic biographies. Judging from the answer to my question, he'll use the tools judiciously and be a net positive. What's more, I like the intention to work in revdel. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Quality candidate, quality nominators. El_C 20:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support - seems like a great candidate. I’m interested to hear the candidate's response to Wugapodes' question (question 12). Best of luck! D💘ggy54321 (xoxo😘) 21:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support - Helpful. Easy to work with. No brainer; great candidate. --Rosiestep (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:53, 16 February 2021‎
  79. Support - can't see any risk of abusing the tools. Will be a clear net positive. Gizza (talk • voy) 23:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support, seems like a perfectly fine candidate. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support Perfect person for the mop! JayJayWhat did I do? 01:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support No evidence they will misuse the tools or abuse the position.--MONGO (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support, a good candidate. --Bduke (talk) 01:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support per nominators. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support Should be good with the mop. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Dissatisfied with answer to question 4. The user seems to imply that they would use unreliable or primary sources when reliable sources are unavailable; When at all possible, I try to cite information to reliable secondary sources. They seem to be repeatedly using these poor quality sources, see Fadila Bouamr, Nirali N. Shah, Dale Baum, Rosemarie Allen. Also, I'm concerned that the user defended their use of citing the employer of an article subject as a source; Those two biographies cite noncontroversial information to CVs posted by their employer, the National Cancer Institute and Texas A&M University respectively. I would note that the employer has a significant COI, and even if the content is 'noncontroversial', it still can't be relied on. The user last made an edit to WP:ITNC on 5 January ([1]) and I would question if, in the future, they would contribute to this area greatly like they claim to in question 1. They have only made 29 edits to RFPP, an area where they also intend to contribute. As for their AfD contributions, they have only made one delete vote and a look at their some of their latest AfD contributions ([2], [3], [4], [5], [6]) shows that they usually pitch in when a consensus has already been reached and they simply agree with the other editors. Finally, a look at their last 500 edits shows they're mainly contributing to mainspace or AfC, with expansions of articles, copyediting, adding or removing categories, and discussions on talk pages, and not administrative areas like noticeboards, RFPP, AfD and so forth. Overall, I'm not seeing any need for this user to have administrative rights. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 22:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Willbb234, I am not trying to badger you here, but wanted to provide a perspective for context here. Back in 2019, I came across Peter Capak while doing NPP, and nominated it for deletion on similar the grounds to what you cite above - he was clearly a prolific academic, but I couldn't find any truly independent sources to verify the information. Here is the deletion discussion: to say my view did not meet with general approval would be an understatement. The understanding I have developed since then is that NPROF actually predates GNG as a concept, and that there is long-standing consensus that if a subject meets NPROF, they don't also have to meet GNG. Since sourcing for academics is sometimes difficult to come by, there is also a general consensus that the use of affiliated sources (where these sources come from reputable institutions) is acceptable for non-controversial information such as research interests and career details. As always, editorial judgment is required, and I haven't reviewed the particular articles you've flagged, but speaking generally there's nothing wrong with articles of that sort. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 11:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral for now. Too many of their biographies are sourced only to primary sources (some are permitted based on WP:PROF). Despite us both having over 150 edits in the past 4 years to WP:ITNC, I don't remember this username from that forum. Most of their AFD activity is just sorting, and I see no delete votes ever. There isn't other admin activity (anti-vandalism, move discussions, etc.) of note. I don't see any red flags, but also don't see sufficient reason to support an RFA. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I never knew WP:ITNC existed. Surely from your argument and in the spirit of Wikipedia, i.e the way, you would vote support? scope_creepTalk 18:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Content creation is a central mission of Wikipedia. The nominee's "best contributions to Wikipedia" are, IMHO, unimpressive, being barely notable and narrow. It probably doesn't matter.--Smokefoot (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
  • Re question #4, I have had the same issues with academic BLPs who pass NPROF but who have never had a WP:SIGCOV interview (and thus lack basic BIO details like dob, education, etc.); and thus have resorted to using their CV posted onto their official university website (per WP:BLPPRIMARY). Britishfinance (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[7], [8]. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 22:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lying on your CV on your official webpage in your university for a professor (i.e. or other NPROF qualification), is an unlikely stretch; no more likely as any BLP candidate lying about their bio details in an interview to a quality RS whose article becomes a source for their BLP? Obviously, per WP::PRIMARY, caution always applies. Britishfinance (talk) 23:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, many professors would abstain from falsification of their records for the simple reason that they would risk losing tenure.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Somewhat of a tangent: What exactly is the basis behind granting adminship based on a "need for the tools"? Is there a disadvantage of giving admin rights to someone who has the temperament and ability to be an admin, if they don't plan on using the tools immediately? --WaltCip-(talk) 15:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone you trust offers to clean up your home for no pay, and you give them the keys – only to have them turn up rarely (which is okay I guess; but just a matter of expectations)...speaking from personal experience as the one who volunteered :) Lourdes 16:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think there is a disadvantage, but the key is having enough of a record to evaluate that they do have the temperament and ability. Once they become an admin, they can do as much or as little as they wish, as we are all volunteers.-- P-K3 (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's different philosophies on this. Some RFA participants expect a need for the tools, while others (like me) are in the camp that the "need for tools" is overblown and that its temperament and competence that matter. Hog Farm Talk 17:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does this "need for tools" really come from an earlier time when there were too many looking to be admins, and thus the criteria was applied? I have seen successful RfAs do little admin work (which is fine), and established admins re-focus on articles (but still remain admins, also fine). Given our net need for admins, should we not drop this criteria at RfAs? Britishfinance (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/TJMSmith&oldid=1007238711"